Well the way I do it is by not using tables just for layout purposes. Really
simple (but not entirely true - I do use a tool for presentations that is
supplied to me and gets maintained and regularly updated by other people.
That uses a table to put some buttons on the page. I used to maintain my own
version, but it got too hard to keep up).
There have been discussions before about getting people to use
summary="layout table" (so should spanish tools look for summary="solo
maquetacion" or what?) or some similar mechanism.
It would also be possible to use a profile to identify this. It seems like
standardising ways of doing this and then getting that implemented in tools
is a lot of work compared with just not using tables for layout, from my
perspective.
Chaals
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Kerstin Goldsmith wrote:
>Has anyone come up with a way to standardize on signaling that a table
>is being used for layout purposes only? When we run our documentation
>through our accessibility checking utility, we have told folks to add a
>null SUMMARY attribute to their tables, and our checking utility
>recognizes this as a signal that the table need not be checked for
>association between headers and cells, or for header markup itself. Is
>anyone else standardizing on this, or are folks using SUMMARY="This is a
>layout table?" Or some such variation? It seems that the SUMMARY=""
>makes sense in the same way that null ALT attributes work for decorative
>graphics, no?
>
>Is anyone interested in standardizing on such a thing, so that all ERTs
>(Evaluation and Repair Tools) can be looking for the same thing?
>
>Cheers,
>-Kerstin Goldsmith
>
>
--
Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22
W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France